Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM


  • ***


« Maya Angelou: No haven in her shadow | Main | Reaction to Obama's West Point address, in one word »

May 28, 2014



I'll be watching to see how this plays out. Republicans have long believed, with good reason, that they can lie with impunity about things like this. In the Bush years, they counted on Democrats and the media to be too timid to challenge the "war preznit" or his party in "a time of war" lest they not be "supporting the troops" and all that disingenuous wrapping themselves in the flag they got away with for so long.

Since the 2004 elections, Democrats have been much better (though still not nearly good enough) at pushing back at least on the very worst lies. But the GOP has managed to get away with it nonetheless simply by repeating the damn lie until the opposition simply gets too tired of rebutting it to bother.

It doesn't help that "fact checker" outfits feel the need to self-police to make sure they ding the Democrats often enough to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label. Which leads them to such absurdities as labeling "Paul Ryan's budget ends Medicare as we know it" the Lie of the Year, when in fact it is 100% true unless you look at it from just the right angle, with 3D glasses on, at sundown.

Romney may have lost the election, but aside from the wonderful "please proceed, governor" moment, he was never held to account for the firehose-like gusher of lies that spilled forth from his piehole every single damn day of the campaign. Granted, only so much is possible when faced with a torrent that powerful.

I know I sound like a naive lefty blogger in my flannel PJs caked in cheeto dust saying this, but I believe it nonetheless: if given a fair accounting of what Obama actually did his first term (as opposed to the mountain of lies Romney and all the dark money backing him had free reign to propagate), and what Romney's policies (to the extent he humored us peons with an explanation of what the hell they even were) would actually do to this country, Obama would have won a far larger victory than he did and we might have the House back in non-insane hands.

It's great to see one of the state's big newspapers actually call Mitch out on this BS. I highly doubt he'll abandon the mendacity approach in response, but maybe he'll take the appropriate amount of punishment for it at the polls. Know hope.


She seems to have done a bit of twisting herself when asked if she would have voted for ACA had she been in the senate when the law was being passed. I would still like to see her win, though. Even though I do not live in Kentucky, just seeing the contrast between these two candidates in their victory speeches last week showed the stark difference between the old and stale, and the new and fresh. I know Karl Rove had the same criticism of Hillary Clinton, but I'm not about to trust the word of someone who would probably be involved in the presidential candidacy of yet another Bush. I just hope that the people of Kentucky realize that repealing ACA would mean repealing their popular health care program that only exists BECAUSE of the ACA.

Robert Swartz

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Your last line reminds me of Hunter S. Thompson's classic description of Richard S. Nixon:
"A man so crooked he required his own valet to screw his pants on each morning."

I think what Grimes needs to do is give a press interview where she lays out the connections between the ACA - she doesn't have to, and shouldn't, mention Obamacare - and KYnect. Get the story down down on paper before she has to publicly make the case - and do so by pointing out that the Lexington editorial was absolutely correct.

The comments to this entry are closed.